You can send me email to
Genezistan@googlemail.com Genezistan 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Genezistan, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --AFriedman 17:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
My sandbox[edit source]
Categorization: awaiting reply It is going to be a Course What name to give??
Course Content by faculty: multidisciplinary Does not exist yet Resource type: lecture (lecture notes) and subpages
tag lectures by inserting lecture in curly brackets at the top use subpages
entitle lecture "name of course/lecture 1" with a slash in the middle
link lecture to the course by using subpages, a breadcrumbs trail back to the course will be automatically added
Faculty: ?? Topic namespace??
How are you? I know you wrote to me a while ago, and just wondering how uploading of your book is going. --AFriedman 22:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Beginnings are an interesting topic. I have spent considerable time, looking at a possible Cosmological beginning narrative based on a form of Dark Energy I call Unit Field. I admit that I have an irrational belief that such a system is possible, and have therefore labeled it my religion. The Mystery of how something so elementally simple, could simply through incremental processes, become the complex and mystifying universe we know today, fills me with Awe. Yes Beginnings are an interesting topic. It is however not immediately obvious to me, how a study of beginnings, translates into reflective thinking, or interdisciplinary thinking.--Graeme E. Smith 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, and this is only speculation, the linkage lies not in the topic, but in the types of minds that tend to consider these topics? There is a certain rigidity of mind associated with left brain thinkers that tends to the judgment side of the personality scale, while Right Brain thinkers might tend towards Perceiving, (At least in the Meyers Briggs Personality scale). A Judging personality would not be able to set aside the existing knowledge framework and consider starting again with a different paradigm, until the paradigm was mature enough to be demonstrate-ably better than the previous paradigm, A perceiving personality might be able to start again, but might not be able to judge when their ideas are mature enough to publish.--Graeme E. Smith 15:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A little taster[edit source]
Thanks for the points. All I know of the world is a kind of awakening, a growing level of awareness within the range of human perception, both native and artificially enhanced. No wonder that our explanation of existence of anything, the universe and beyond follows the same paradigm relying on our concept of space, time, motion and speed. However, those categories are primarily concerned with a) the visible bodies and thus matter, energy, waves and particles, always focusing on one entity, and not two, namely b) form and content which co-exist in any entity and may be seen in a flip-flop shift of the point of observation. Physics claims that we cannot be inside and outside of anything observed at the same time and that should be accepted. With the current chunking of world using a natural language you get a paradigm the semantics of which is not inside the linguistics forms, but in the reactions deriving from the experience shared by using a common language. Thinking comes before acquiring a natural language and the emergence of language has to be thought of as something starting with the first sound, word, sentence, etc. as everything starts with one, the first one in the row or a line (assuming that you accept the space-time paradigm). Therefore, if you want to find out the semantics of any natural language today, you need to go back to see the "semantic primitives", the terminal symbols that are not identical with the outcome of syntax analysis or parsing. It is commonly known that most objects in nature are composed of a handful of very small components, including the DNA, the atom and the molecules, but also man-made artifacts, such as music, alphabets, etc. AI is based on formal logic and a peculiar understanding of semantic analysis which does not allow them to integrate ontologies. Foundation ontology models (vocabularies, paradigms) are erroneous in my view and I would like to show how and why. The entry words thinking and thought in Wikipedia are a mess and it is difficult to give a plausible view of the scenery, unless you have an academic position or a list of followers. But the best vantage point is outside all the disciplines which as G. Bernard Shaw has remarked are a plot against all the lay people (the outsiders to the field). Having witnessed the postings of the relevant forums I find that there is nothing substantial or illuminating in the positions they take as nothing is at stake, except careers and government funds. But I cannot see any serious interest in sorting out the verbose garbage in order to foster understanding through using a language with a tool to trace the underlying mental operations that are currently undisclosed. But I would not like to run away with my points, so I had rather stop here and would ask you to ask me questions so that I can have an "audience" for guidance Best Genezistan 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
One more point
And not only form and content come as twin concepts that are the properties of ONE object, if you are able to see them from a different angle, like the usual ambiguous, binary shapes cited everywhere, but generic and specific, abstract and concrete also go hand in hand and are a subject of the knowledge of the observer.
Genezistan 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)